Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool offers structured controls for sorting and pagination, but no further behavioral details like rate limits or error handling are provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and the second provides usage guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema and the rich input schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and mentions key capabilities. Minor omission like not describing return values is mitigated by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes the sort options (relevance, date, replies, views) and mentions ordering and pagination, which adds some context beyond the schema but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches WindowsForum threads with structured controls for sorting and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting that this tool should be used when result ordering or paging matters, setting it apart from generic search tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises to 'use when result ordering or paging matters', providing clear guidance on when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.